The cut in the throat

[Colin Roberts]

The perceptual probability¹, chance, and odds, of two independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', occurring within the same hour, within the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'

¹ i.e. the probability, chance, and odds that I believe should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888

---

Please Note:

I am presenting calculated estimations of the perceptual odds, chances, and probabilities, that I believe should prevail, in any effort to gauge the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event'; as opposed to calculations of the actual odds, chances, and probabilities, that do prevail, in any analysis of ... let's say ... the toss of a coin.

In other words: I am effectively presenting 'theory', as opposed to 'reality'.

When a human being resolves to commit murder, ... all bets are off. Probability will not stand in his way, or affect his resolution.

But, probability theory is certainly a viable means of gauging any sort of extraordinary nature that his resolution might posses, with regard to timing and/or placement.

---

In the five calendar-years prior to 1888, there were a total of twenty two (22) registered deaths of female adults, throughout the whole of England, classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': i.e. an average of 4.40 such registered deaths, per annum.

So, a reasonable expectation, at the onset of 1888, would have been that four (4) deaths of female adults, classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', would be registered, throughout England, during the coming year.

However, for the sake of more accurate estimation, of the perceptual odds that two female adults would be murdered independently, by way of 'Cut Throat', within the aforementioned color-shaded region, ... and, within the same hour, during the coming year; the calculated average of 4.40 will be utilized.

---


Cumulative Probability Distribution (Murder-Site Mean-Center (Green Dot) -to- Greatest Observed Deviation (Mary Ann Nichols Murder-Site)) (Circular) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2010

The Perceptual Probability that One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region

- Assume a Population of 27,482,104, for the Whole of England, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891

- Assume a Population of 120,000*, for the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891; and Charles Booth's "Labour & Life of the People: London", Appendix to Volume II, Williams & Norgate, 1891

- Calculate the Number of Regions that Must be Drawn, in order to Divide England's Total Population, of 27,482,104; into Sub-Sets that Consist of 120,000 Persons: 27,482,104 ÷ 120,000 = 229.02

- Calculate the Perceptual Probability that One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region: 4.40 ÷ 229.02 = 0.01921250 (i.e. 1.921250%)

* I have estimated the population, of the depicted color-shaded circular region, to have been between 90,000 and 120,000, in 1888

- Perceptual Probability: 1.921250%

---

The Perceptual Chance that One Murder, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Chance: 1 ÷ (1 ÷ 0.01921250) = 1 / 52.05 (i.e. 1 -in- 52.05)

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 52.05

---

The Perceptual Odds that One Murder, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Odds: (52.05 - 1) -to- 1 (i.e. 51.05 -to- 1)

- Perceptual Odds: 51.05 -to- 1

---

Again; ...

That One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region:

- Perceptual Probability: 1.921250%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 52.05

- Perceptual Odds: 51.05 -to- 1

---------

The Perceptual Probability that One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, during a particular One-Hour Period

- Assume Three Hundred and Sixty Five (365)* Twenty-Four-Hour Periods, per Year

- Assume Eight (8) 'Prime Throat-Cutting Hours' (i.e. 10:00PM - 6:00AM), per Twenty-Four-Hour Period

- Calculate the Number of 'Prime Throat-Cutting Hours' (i.e. 10:00PM - 6:00AM), per Year: 365 x 8 = 2,920

- Calculate the Perceptual Probability that One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, during a particular One-Hour Period; i.e. during a particular 'Prime Throat-Cutting Hour': 4.40 ÷ 2,920 = 0.00150685 (i.e. 0.150685%)

* Calendar-Year 1888 was, in fact, a 'Leap-Year'; and consisted, therefore, of three hundred and sixty six (366) twenty-four-hour periods

- Perceptual Probability: 0.150685%

---

The Perceptual Chance that One Murder, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Chance: 1 ÷ (1 ÷ 0.00150685) = 1 / 663.64 (i.e. 1 -in- 663.64)

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 663.64

---

The Perceptual Odds that One Murder, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Odds: (663.64 - 1) -to- 1 (i.e. 662.64 -to- 1)

- Perceptual Odds: 662.64 -to- 1

---

Again; ...

That One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, during a particular One-Hour Period:

- Perceptual Probability: 0.150685%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 663.64

- Perceptual Odds: 662.64 -to- 1

---------

The Perceptual Probability that One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region; and during a particular One-Hour Period

This involves a 'Joint Probability', with respect to the first, of four possible outcomes:

1.) Region 'Yes', Hour 'Yes'
2.) Region 'Yes', Hour 'No'
3.) Region 'No', Hour 'No'
4.) Region 'No', Hour 'Yes'

- Calculate The Perceptual Probability that One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region; and during a particular One-Hour Period: 1.921250% x 0.150685% = 0.002895%

- Perceptual Probability: 0.002895%

---

The Perceptual Chance that One Murder, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Chance: 1 ÷ (1 ÷ 0.00002895) = 1 / 34,541.90 (i.e. 1 -in- 34,541.90)

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 34,541.90

---

The Perceptual Odds that One Murder, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Odds: (34,541.90 - 1) -to- 1 (i.e. 34,540.90 -to- 1)

- Perceptual Odds: 34,540.90 -to- 1

---

Again; ...

That One Murder, of a Female Adult, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region; and during a particular One-Hour Period:

- Perceptual Probability: 0.002895%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 34,541.90

- Perceptual Odds: 34,540.90 -to- 1

---------

The Perceptual Probability that Two Independent Murders, of Female Adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region; and during a particular One-Hour Period

This involves a 'Joint Probability', with respect to the first, of four possible outcomes:

1.) First Murder 'Yes', Second Murder 'Yes'
2.) First Murder 'Yes', Second Murder 'No'
3.) First Murder 'No', Second Murder 'No'
4.) First Murder 'No', Second Murder 'Yes'

- Calculate The Perceptual Probability that Two Independent Murders, of Female Adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region; and during a particular One-Hour Period: 0.002895% x 0.002895% = 0.000000083812%

- Perceptual Probability: 0.000000083812%

---

The Perceptual Chance that Two Independent Murders, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Chance: 1 ÷ (1 ÷ 0.00000000083812) = 1 / 1,193,142,903.19 (i.e. 1 -in- 1,193,142,903.19)

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 1,193,142,903.19

---

The Perceptual Odds that Two Independent Murders, ...

- Calculate the Perceptual Odds: (1,193,142,903.19 - 1) -to- 1 (i.e. 1,193,142,902.19 -to- 1)

- Perceptual Odds: 1,193,142,902.19 -to- 1

---

Again; ...

That Two Independent Murders, of Female Adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur, within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region; and during a particular One-Hour Period:

- Perceptual Probability: 0.000000083812%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 1,193,142,903.19

- Perceptual Odds: 1,193,142,902.19 -to- 1

~~~

The perceptual odds, i.e. the odds of such an occurrence that should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888, are indeed, astronomical!

- They are slightly greater than the odds of thirty (30) sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads'.

- They are significantly greater than the odds of ten (10) sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

~~~

Again:

I have presented calculated estimations of the perceptual odds, chances, and probabilities, that I believe should prevail, in any effort to gauge the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event'; as opposed to calculations of the actual odds, chances, and probabilities, that do prevail, in any analysis of ... let's say ... the toss of a coin.

In other words: I have effectively presented 'theory', as opposed to 'reality'.

[Colin Roberts]

Colin Roberts:

"I have returned to Casebook, and entered this discussion, specifically, because I believe that you and 'Fisherman' are attempting - either wittingly, or unwittingly - to apply a certain degree of 'spin' to the argument that the so-called 'Double Event' was not, in fact, extraordinary."

Let´s skip the wittingly or unwittingly business and be very straightforward with no "spin" at all, Colin

Very well, Christer!

And of course, if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, none of us would have known her name today.

'Spin'!

That is 'spin', and you know that that is 'spin'.

As is ...

Hello Christer.

"if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, none of us would have known her name today."

A hearty "amen" to that my friend!

... Lynn's endorsement.

That is the 'spin' of a lobbyist, Christer!

It is the sort of thing that is shoved in your face, on a very regular basis, by the clique of Hutchinson lobbyists, before whom, you so admirably stand your ground.

Please don't descend to such depths.

---

I am not here to discuss whether Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were felled by the same hand.

I am here to insist that the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event' not be marginalized, as a means of 'lobbying' for the likelihood of two independent perpetrators.

[Colin Roberts]

"I won't 'beat around the bush', Lynn."

Nor even the Cutbush? (Couldn't resist.)

"I will return, later this weekend, with some estimations of the perceptual probability, chance, and odds, - i.e. the probability, chance, and odds that I believe should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888 - of two independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', occurring within the same hour, within the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'.¹"

Very well. But please to observe the ontological status of probability.

I believe that I have, Lynn!

The perceptual probability, chance, and odds¹, of two independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', occurring within the same hour, within the observed 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper'

¹ i.e. the probability, chance, and odds that I believe should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888

---

Please Note:

I am presenting calculated estimations of the perceptual odds, chances, and probabilities, that I believe should prevail, in any effort to gauge the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event'; as opposed to calculations of the actual odds, chances, and probabilities, that do prevail, in any analysis of ... let's say ... the toss of a coin.

In other words: I am effectively presenting 'theory', as opposed to 'reality'.

When a human being resolves to commit murder, ... all bets are off. Probability will not stand in his way, or affect his resolution.

But, probability theory is certainly a viable means of gauging any sort of extraordinary nature that his resolution might posses, with regard to timing and/or placement.

---

Thanks again!

You are most welcome, Lynn!

[lynn cates]

epistemology

Hello Colin. You seem to be saying that, your view of probability, as more fittingly ascribed to epistemology, rather than to ontology, is correct. I heartily agree!

I am somewhat puzzled by your (seeming) disagreement with my endorsement of Christer's dictum. If I understand your thinking on Liz Stride, it is that this gains credence as a "Ripper murder" PRECISELY because it happened fairly close to the others in space and time. (And this is the main stream view.) But I understood Christer's remark as saying that same thing also. Put in other words, "If Liz were killed in the same location, but, say, a couple of years before or after her actual TOD, she would not be considered a "Ripper victim." Is that not your view?

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

Hello Colin. You seem to be saying that, your view of probability, as more fittingly ascribed to epistemology, rather than to ontology, is correct. I heartily agree!

You're going to have to toss me a line, Lynn. I can no longer touch the bottom, and I am not wearing my floaties.

Our knowledge enables the conception and application of probability theory; but, the existence of any resultant probabilities, in this instance, is merely perceptual, as opposed to being actual?

I am somewhat puzzled by your (seeming) disagreement with my endorsement of Christer's dictum. If I understand your thinking on Liz Stride, it is that this gains credence as a "Ripper murder" PRECISELY because it happened fairly close to the others in space and time. (And this is the main stream view.) But I understood Christer's remark as saying that same thing also. Put in other words, "If Liz were killed in the same location, but, say, a couple of years before or after her actual TOD, she would not be considered a "Ripper victim." Is that not your view?

And of course, if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, ...

I do not condone the hypothetical extrication of determinant factors.

If Rob Clack had a single hair on his head, he might be the obvious choice for the leading role, in that series of shampoo commercials that is being filmed, in Croydon, next week.

But, Rob Clack does not have a single hair on his head!

And, Elizabeth Stride did "fall prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare"! Period!

And again, ...

And of course, if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, ...

"in the midst of the Ripper scare" ???

Let's try ... 'within one hour, and within 950 yards, of the murder of Catherine Eddowes'.

And finally, ...

And of course, if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, none of us would have known her name today.

Funny, isn't it?

That we should know, today, the name of the woman that was murdered in Swallow('s) Gardens, some two-and-a-half years after the "Ripper scare" had begun to subside.

[lynn cates]

probability

Hello Colin.

"resultant probabilities, in this instance, is merely perceptual, as opposed to being actual?"

Well, in EVERY case, probability is merely a way of calculating our human ignorance. Need convincing? Try this.

We say that the probability of a fair coin (whatever that means--I suppose 2 sided; evenly weighted metal throughout, etc) coming down heads after being tossed is 1/2 (better: as the number of occurrences approaches infinity, the probability of tossing heads nears 1/2). BUT, if we knew ALL the variables--attitude of the flipper, strength of flip, why the flip had strength value X rather than Y, what the flipper had for breakfast, how the coin was initially placed in the hand, etc--we would KNOW precisely whether a given flip would result in heads, or not. Hence my claim that probability is merely a calculation of our unknowing (ie, human ignorance), and, as such. properly within epistemology (theory of knowledge) not ontology (study of being as such).

Cheers.
LC

[claire]

That's not quite correct. Probability may be a reasoned solution to our inability to know, but it's not a calculation of our ignorance. The variables pertain to what we know; there's no way of knowing, or calculating, the extent or nature of what we don't know.

Coin flips aren't a particularly good analogy in the Stride case (or in most cases in the real world), since the Stride case has significantly more variables than does a simple binary. There is no unified form for murder that means that one is qualitatively the same as any other, so there's little point in treating every murder that occurred in London as an empirically coterminous group, irrespective of their characteristics.

[sleekviper]

The distance was 950 yards? Sweet, I had a maximum distance of 1097 yards, now things are getting interesting!

[lynn cates]

probability again

Hello Claire.

"Coin flips aren't a particularly good analogy in the Stride case (or in most cases in the real world), since the Stride case has significantly more variables than does a simple binary. There is no unified form for murder that means that one is qualitatively the same as any other, so there's little point in treating every murder that occurred in London as an empirically coterminous group, irrespective of their characteristics."

I completely agree. Hence, my looking at probability and statistics through a jaundiced eye.

My remarks were aimed at probability in general and, yes, I took the simplest case possible to illustrate my point.

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

Well, in EVERY case, probability is merely a way of calculating our human ignorance. Need convincing? Try this.

We say that the probability of a fair coin (whatever that means--I suppose 2 sided; evenly weighted metal throughout, etc) coming down heads after being tossed is 1/2 (better: as the number of occurrences approaches infinity, the probability of tossing heads nears 1/2). BUT, if we knew ALL the variables--attitude of the flipper, strength of flip, why the flip had strength value X rather than Y, what the flipper had for breakfast, how the coin was initially placed in the hand, etc--we would KNOW precisely whether a given flip would result in heads, or not. Hence my claim that probability is merely a calculation of our unknowing (ie, human ignorance), and, as such. properly within epistemology (theory of knowledge) not ontology (study of being as such).

OK, Lynn!

So, given complete control of every conceivable variable, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of any event.

Hence, when predicting the outcome of the single toss of a coin, - generally speaking - we posses 50% of the knowledge, i.e. 'predictability', that is potentially available.

I haven't been taking my Lexapro lately, and the last thing I need is something else to obsessively ponder for the next six months.



But, what bearing, if any, at all, does this have on my contention that at the onset of 1888, the likelihood of the so-called 'Double Event' occurring as it did, and involving two independent murders, should have been perceived as being similar to that of 30.15212 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads', or that of 11.66443 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'?

[Colin Roberts]

I have contended that at the onset of 1888, the likelihood of the so-called 'Double Event' occurring as it did, and involving two independent murders, should have been perceived as being similar to that of 30.15212 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads', or that of 11.66443 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

The perceptual odds of such an occurrence, i.e. the odds of such an occurrence, which should have been perceived, at the onset of 1888, are indeed, astronomical!

- They are slightly greater than the odds of thirty (30) sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads'.

- They are significantly greater than the odds of ten (10) sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

They are, in fact equivalent to the odds of 30.15212 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads'.

They are, in fact equivalent to the odds of 11.66443 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

Again; ...

Assuming a mathematically derived 'expectation', at the onset of 1888, that 4.40¹ murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would occur throughout England, during the coming year, ...

¹ The mean number of registered deaths of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 1883-1887, i.e. during the five-year period, preceding 1888.

~~~

But, what if someone had taken it upon themselves, to derive an 'expectation', at the onset of 1888, that nine murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would occur throughout England, during the coming year; purely on the basis that nine such murders had occurred during the previous year, i.e. 1887?

Well, their 'expectation', in this instance, would certainly have been more accurate than the one, which should have - in my opinion - prevailed. But, ...

Assuming an 'expectation', at the onset of 1888, that nine murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would occur throughout England, during the coming year, ...

...

That Two Independent Murders, of Female Adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur; within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region, and during a particular One-Hour Period:

- Perceptual Probability: 0.000001467124%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 68,160,556.97

- Perceptual Odds: 68,160,555.97 -to- 1

- Odds, which are, in fact, equivalent to the odds of 26.02243 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads'.

- Odds, which are, in fact, equivalent to the odds of 10.06685 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

So, I should be contending that at the onset of 1888, the likelihood of the so-called 'Double Event' occurring as it did, and involving two independent murders, should have been perceived as being similar to that of 26.02243 -to- 30.15212 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads', or that of 10.06685 -to- 11.66443 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

~~~

And, what if someone had taken it upon themselves, to look into a crystal ball, so to speak, and in so doing, derive an 'expectation', at the onset of 1888, that as many as thirteen independent murders² of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would occur throughout England, during the coming year?

² Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat'; 1888: 15

The 'expectation' that as many as thirteen independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would occur throughout England, during the coming year, in this particular instance, would be based on the assumption that each of the fifteen murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', that actually would occur (excepting those of Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Catherine Eddowes), would be independent.

In other words; the nearly universal agreement that Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Catherine Eddowes, were murdered by the same perpetrator, would effectively dictate that their murders be counted, in this regard, as one independent murder of a female adult, by way of 'Cut Throat'; thereby reducing the 1888 total, of fifteen murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', to thirteen independent murders of female adults, by way of the same.

Well, their 'expectation', in this instance, would certainly have been more realistic than the one, which should have - in my opinion - prevailed; but, perhaps a bit too surrealistic, as well ...

Assuming an 'expectation', at the onset of 1888, that thirteen independent murders of female adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would occur throughout England, during the coming year, ...

...

That Two Independent Murders, of Female Adults, by way of 'Cut Throat', would Occur; within the depicted Color-Shaded Circular Region, and during a particular One-Hour Period:

- Perceptual Probability: 0.000006386608%

- Perceptual Chance: 1 -in- 15,657,764.58

- Perceptual Odds: 15,657,763.58 -to- 1

- Odds, which are, in fact, equivalent to the odds of 23.90037 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads'.

- Odds, which are, in fact, equivalent to the odds of 9.24593 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

And, therefore, I should be contending that today, the likelihood of the so-called 'Double Event' having occurred as it did, and having involved two independent murders, should be perceived as being similar to that of 23.90037 -to- 30.15212 sequential tosses of a coin, landing entirely on 'Heads', or that of 9.24593 -to- 11.66443 sequential tosses of a single die, landing entirely on '1'.

~~~

In any case, the likelihood that the so-called 'Double Event' occurred as it did, involving two independent murders, should be perceived as being minuscule, when considered purely on the basis of the degrees of time & space that were involved.

~~~

A Point of Reiteration:

I am not here to discuss whether Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were felled by the same hand.

I am here to insist that the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event' not be marginalized, as a means of 'lobbying' for the likelihood of two independent perpetrators.

[lynn cates]

statistically speaking

Hello Colin. I'm delighted that you relegated this to the ONSET of the year, hence considering the entire sequence of events, not just 1 independent one.

Let's assume, for the moment, that your calculation of probabilities is correct to even only 3 significant figures. Would this answer the question, "Was Stride killed by the same hand as Eddowes?"? I think not. This seems analogous to claiming I'm not conversing with you since the odds on the human genome's arising is X (can't recall how many zeroes go to the right of the decimal here).

Put into proper perspective, probability and statistics are alright and, indeed, serve the actuarial calculator well.

But my favourite line about Liz Stride comes from both Stewart Evans and Tom Wescott. I paraphrase. "Based on the evidence alone, there is not sufficient to include nor exclude her from the canon." So, until it does, I shall continue to look in "out of the way places" for a resolution.

Thanks again!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

questions

Hello Colin. Our posts crossed.

"I am here to insist that the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event' not be marginalized, as a means of 'lobbying' for the likelihood of two independent perpetrators."

Yes, the "Double Event" was extraordinary. Yes, even if 10 women get their throats cut, in some sense, that is extraordinary. But sometimes, the extraordinary happens. (What are the odds of a "Double Event" AND another lady independently getting her throat cut?)

Not sure what "marginalized" means in this context.

Lobbying? A professional lobbyist wishes to gain something--often of a pecuniary nature. I wish to have my questions answered and an end be put to this thing.

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

Put into proper perspective, probability and statistics are alright and, indeed, serve the actuarial calculator well.

But my favourite line about Liz Stride comes from both Stewart Evans and Tom Wescott. I paraphrase. "Based on the evidence alone, there is not sufficient to include nor exclude her from the canon." So, until it does, I shall continue to look in "out of the way places" for a resolution.

And, I shall applaud your every effort, Lynn. Provided, of course, that you do not assume a lobbyist's posture.

I must say that on occasion, you and Christer have both appeared to be 'lobbying', so to speak, for the effective removal of Elizabeth Stride from the supposed 'canon', which so many seem to believe actually exists. It doesn't! But, that of course, is neither here, nor there.

As I indicated yesterday, ...

When a human being resolves to commit murder, ... all bets are off. Probability will not stand in his way, or affect his resolution.

So, again, Lynn, I shall applaud your every effort, in those "out of the way places".

Not sure what "marginalized" means in this context.

I have perceived an apparent attempt to 'relegate' the fact that the murder of Elizabeth Stride occurred within one hour, and within 950 yards, of the murder of Catherine Eddowes, to a lesser degree of significance. This being, so it would seem, a means of 'lobbying' for the general acceptance of a 'Double Event', involving two perpetrators.

Lobbying? A professional lobbyist wishes to gain something--often of a pecuniary nature.

There is a handful of posters that will happily generate any amount of 'spin' that is deemed necessary, to 'lobby' for the universal acceptance of George Hutchinson, as 'Jack the Ripper'.

As long as it is confined to 'Hutchinson' threads; I don't care.

But, I would hope that the same thing would not occur elsewhere.

I wish to have my questions answered and an end be put to this thing.

I believe that I have fully stated my case.

I will now excuse myself from this thread.

I look forward to further discourse with both yourself, and Christer, in some other arena, in which our views are not quite as 'polarized', or potentially divisive.

[lynn cates]

salute

Hello Colin.

"And, I shall applaud your every effort, Lynn."

Thank you!

" . . . the supposed 'canon', which so many seem to believe actually exists. It doesn't!"

I halfway agree here. The "canon" is attributable to Dr. Bond, who saw ONE body. This was furthered by Sir Melville MacNaughten who proclaimed a canon of 5. Often, the notion of "canon" gets applied to a set of events, works, etc. indicating a broad consensus regarding authorship amongst those having an opinion on that set.

"I have perceived an apparent attempt to 'relegate' the fact that the murder of Elizabeth Stride occurred within one hour, and within 950 yards, of the murder of Catherine Eddowes, to a lesser degree of significance. This being, so it would seem, a means of 'lobbying' for the general acceptance of a 'Double Event', involving two perpetrators."

Just out of curiosity, how far apart must the events be in 1. space and 2. time, before they become insignificant? (Just in your view.)

"There is a handful of posters that will happily generate any amount of 'spin' that is deemed necessary . . . "

I personally want NO spin. I want the eventual explanation for the WCM to flow as naturally as water flows downhill--and the sooner the better.

"I will now excuse myself from this thread."

I daresay Richard will be delighted when BOTH of us are gone. (heh-heh)

"I look forward to further discourse . . . "

Yes, anytime. I appreciate good discourse and, looking above, I see no acrimony. We may not agree, but that, in itself, is OK.

Cheers.
LC